[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[SANET-MG] testing of human subjects EPA uses the Mengele paradigm
The testing of human subjects is considered very important by
corporations and their subordinants in EPA. The argument posed below is
truly a goofy one."The study is not expected to to cause serious or
irreversible harm to the subjects" in particular is a self serving
approach. As usual the "not expected" will flow directly from fat assed
public relations people from Monsanto.
The EPA have turned to the Dr.Dr. Josef Mengele paradigm for guidance in
human experiments.
Commentary
Pesticide Testing on Human Subjects: Weighing Benefits and Risks
David B. Resnik1 and Christopher Portier2
1Office of the Scientific Director, and 2National Toxicology Program,
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes
of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina, USA
Abstract
In the debate surrounding testing pesticides on human subjects, two
distinct positions have emerged. The first position holds that pesticide
experiments on human subjects should be allowed, but only under
stringent scientific and ethical standards. The second position asserts
that these experiments should never be allowed. In this article, we
evaluate what we consider to be the strongest argument for the second
position--namely, that the benefits of the experiments are not
significant enough to justify the risks posed to healthy subjects. We
challenge this argument by examining the benefits and risks of testing
pesticides on human subjects. We argue that a study that intentionally
exposes humans subjects to pesticides should be permitted if a) the
knowledge gained from the study is expected to promote human health; b)
the knowledge cannot be reasonably obtained by other means; c) the study
is not expected to cause serious or irreversible harm to the subjects;
and d) appropriate safeguards are in place to minimize harm to the
subjects. Key words: Environmental Protection Agency, ethics, Food
Quality Protection Act, human subjects research, pesticide testing.
Environ Health Perspect 113:813-817 (2005). doi: 10.1289/ehp.7720
available via
http://dx.doi.org/ doi:10.1289/ehp.7720 available via http://dx.doi.org/
[Online 16 March 2005]
********************************************************
To unsubscribe from SANET-MG:
1- Visit http://lists.sare.org/archives/sanet-mg.html to unsubscribe or;
2- Send a message to <listserv@sare.org> from the address subscribed to the list. Type "unsubscribe sanet-mg" in the body of the message.
Visit the SANET-MG archives at: http://lists.sare.org/archives/sanet-mg.html
For more information on grants and other resources available through the SARE program, please visit http://www.sare.org.